Los Angeles daily herald., 1887-03-15
DAILY HERALD.
PERKINS-B
A New Trial Granted the
Defendant
BY JUDGE w. A. CHENEY.
The Full Text of the Opinion
Louise's $4,000 Still in the
Distant Future.


Louise's $4,000 Still in the
Distant Future.
Yesterday Judge Cheney, in Depart
ment No. l, of the Superior Court, de
livered an opinion granting defendant q
new trial in the case Of Perkins VS.. Bald
win. About a year ago Miss Louise
Perkins sued "Lucky" Baldwin fol-
breach of promise, and recovered judg.
ment in the sum of $4,000 This
action of Judge Cheney will delay, for a
time, the payment to Miss Perkins of the
amount of her judgment. 1t has hap.
pened, however, that on new trial of
cause, the damages granted plaintiff
have been much larger than on the orig.
inal trial. Whether it will be so in this
case remains to be seen. Followingis is
t,. JUDGE cHENEY's OPINION. tss
In Superior Court in and for) Perkins
Of aPs caIiforeia' aiEeiei county S'a'e Baldwin s
OPINION ON MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.
This i, d motion for new trial in an
action for damages for breach of prom.
iss to marry, in which a verdict was
rendered for plaintiff of damages in the
sum of $4,000. The motion is based
upon alleged errors of law in adverse
rulings upon the admissiblity of evi.
dence, in alleged misleading and inju.
rious remarks made by the Court during
the trial, in the refusal to give certain
instructions asked for by defendant, in
the giving of certain instructions OBJ.
jected to by defendant, and on the fur
ther ground that the verdict is exces.
sive.
1t is more convenient to consider the
last proposition first in order, but, III 50
doing, the rulings of the Court, the
evidence admitted, and the instructions
are necessarily considered as essential
in arriving at conclusion.
There is no surveyed and established
shore, standing upon which Court Can
say to jury, "thus far shalt thou come
and no farther" in cases of this charac
ter-no precise mathematical boundary.
travelling beyond which verdict be-
comes excessive, and must coDclusively
have been given under the influence of
passion or prejudice. Each case of this
nature must be judged by its surround.
ings and the evidence introduced, and
each snch verdict be sustained or set
aside as the mirror of justice may show
it distorted and unequal in reflection Of
the evidence and circumstances of the
trial, or fair and not uureasonably ex.
cessive or oppressive.
Without stepping from the seat of
legal justice to question the merits of
this case so far as the general facts in
issue are concerned, does he Court con.
slider this verdict of SIS, 900 excessive or
not?
In examining the record of the trial
as before us iu the statement on the mo.
ton, we find number of errors aud ir.
regularities, the effect of which we
deem have been to mislead the jury and
which could not fail to have been preju
dical to defendant. The discussion of
these, so far as we deem it important to
discuss them, we leave for succeeding
portion of this opinion.
By a patient and careful search we
are unable to find any lighthouse set up
on the shore of damages calculated to
guide us into tried and safe harbor. We
find no verdict for damages so great as
this in American reports, and but one
referred to in the courts of England, in
an action of this nature. To warrant
such large margin as exists between
this and the verdicts of the books we
must look for something more than the
assumed fact that defendant is an un-
usually wealthy man, A millionaire, a
man of six millions, is entitled to the
same legal rights and defenses as one
whose bank account shows but q trih-
ing hundred; not more, not less, should |
the Court scan with Jealous care his
legal rights.
AT first information of the amount
of the verdict of $75, 900. any one would
instinctively pause and ask: "Why ?
I his is an unusual amount; this is some-
thing far beyond experience, and why?'
A Judge who remembers his sacred
duty to see equation. at least to some
reasonable degree, maintained in these
matters, would thus pause-wOuld thus
inuuire; SO does this Court; 80 does this
Judge.
The fact that one will thus stop and
consider and question, is an indication
that the verdict has produced an unusual
mental shock of some kind. WHAT'S it?
1t ia a complete answer to say, it shocks
the sense of justice. iu other words, it
seems excessive.
If the Court is right in its assertion
that errors undoubtedly unintenticnal
in the excitement and anxiety of such a
trial before jury with all its necessary
haste). have occurred that prejudiced
the cause of defendant. then this verdict
ought not to stand, for the conclusion
would follow that it is unusual, unwar-
rantable, and has a suspicious odor of
being the result of prejudice,
In placing the verdict in iuxtapos'-
tion with the trial, the Court will not
pass upon all the alleged errors and ir-
rcgularities, but refer to few which are
vital.
During the cross examination Of the
plaintiff. counsel for the defendant asked
the following questions otter plaintiff
had testified that she was acquainted
with one s. P Woodward.
estate whether in Ell Monte, in the
summer of 1888, you had conversation
with him in reference to Mr.. Baldwin's
msrrying you."
Counsel for plaintiff objected to the
question, because of its indetinitensss,
and the Court sustained the objection.
sDid you have any conversation at all
with Mr. Woodward in the summer of
1888 upon the subject of your marrying
Mr.. Baldwin,
Counsel for plaintiff objected; the oh
lection was sustained and counsel for de-
fendant forbidden by the Court to ask it
agoin.
Notwithstanding counsel for defend
ant stated that it was preliminary
question, the witness was not permitted
to answer the question as finally put,
viz: II will ask you wheiher or not in
the month of June. 1888. you bad any